CCPR/C/116/D/2084/2011
3.2
The author claims that his abduction by the police officers amounts to torture, in
violation of article 7 of the Covenant, and constitutes an arbitrary arrest, in violation of
article 9 (1) of the Covenant.
3.3
The author contends that the prosecutor’s office and the courts respectively failed to
investigate thoroughly his abduction and to review his claims in that connection. According
to the author, the refusal to open a criminal investigation and the subsequent rejection of his
claims by the courts are in violation of article 14 (1).
State party’s observations on admissibility
4.1
In a note verbale dated 27 September 2011, the State party submitted, inter alia, that
there were no legal grounds for the consideration of the communication of V.L., either on
the admissibility or the merits. It further informed the Committee that the author had not
exhausted all available domestic remedies; in particular, he had not appealed, in Minsk
and/or before the Prosecutor General’s office, the denial by the Soviet District prosecutor’s
office of the request to institute criminal proceedings on the basis of his claim.
4.2
In a note verbale dated 25 January 2012,1 the State party recalled the position it had
repeatedly expressed previously, in particular in a note verbale dated 6 January 2011. The
State party submitted that any communication registered in violation of articles 2 and 5 of
the Optional Protocol would be viewed by the State party as incompatible with the Optional
Protocol and would be rejected without comments on the admissibility or the merits. It
further stated that it had no obligations regarding the recognition of the Committee’s rules
of procedure or the Committee’s interpretation of the provisions of the Optional Protocol,
and that decisions taken by the Committee on the present communication would be
considered by its authorities as “invalid”.
Author’s comments on the State party’s observations
5.
In a communication dated 19 December 2011, the author submits that, in accordance
with the Committee’s jurisprudence, one is required to exhaust domestic remedies that are
not only available but also effective. He adds that only complaints examined by the
judiciary can be considered as effective domestic remedies. An appeal to the Minsk city
prosecutor’s office and the Prosecutor General’s office cannot be considered as an effective
domestic remedy because it remains at the discretion of a public official and because a
review of the case, if granted, takes place in the absence of the person concerned.
Furthermore, such a procedure does not allow the person concerned to ask questions, put
forward his or her arguments and file motions. The author states that the way in which the
Minsk city prosecutor’s office and the Prosecutor General’s office have handled his
complaints in the past confirms his doubts as to the effectiveness of any further appeals to
those State bodies. He recalls that on 29 December 2009, he filed a complaint with the
Prosecutor General’s office about the deliberate delay by the Soviet District prosecutor’s
office in initiating criminal proceedings against police officers who had abducted him on
27 November 2009. He reiterates that on 11 January 2010, his complaint was forwarded by
the Prosecutor General’s office to the Minsk city prosecutor’s office and that on 15 January
2010, it was further forwarded by the Minsk city prosecutor’s office to the Soviet District
prosecutor’s office, the same entity about which the author had initially complained to
Prosecutor General’s office. The author asserts that all domestic remedies have been
exhausted for the purposes of article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol.
1
The note verbale is of a general nature and refers to a number of communications registered with the
Committee.
3